270 Gland upon the Bump of Birds. 



repeat again, that they may be seen, that I have seen them, and 

 that so has every other observer, always excepting Mr. Charles 

 Water ton. 



His next sentence it seems that I have answered already 

 in my paper which followed his; so I will go on to the follow- 

 ing one, where he gives the dipper credit for being a water 

 bird ; saying that, if I had compared the nature of a land bird's 

 plumage, with that of a water bird, I should surely not have 

 made the assertion I did : so much for his knowledge of orni- 

 thology ! But why, he asks, do I propose to make the trial 

 by drying the birds "in the sun?" "that very act alone would 

 insure the unsightly appearance," &c. I say it would not ; I 

 have known birds lie in the sun for hours together, even when 

 quite dried, and receive no injury therefrom; and, even grant- 

 ing that it did injure them, is not the trial as good for the land 

 bird as for the water bird? Have they not both an equal 

 chance ? Place them both in the sun, or both out of it " si 

 mavis," only place them both under equal auspices, and the 

 contrast I predicted will be brought about. Facts are 

 stubborn things, and Mr. Waterton finds them so. I should 

 like now to ask who has shown himself a "novice in the na- 

 ture of plumage?" As to the "chemical, or other tedious 

 process," I will beg leave to assure Mr. Waterton, that i" 

 am quite content with the good oldfashioned way of stuffing 

 a bird, and have never tried any newfangled experiments, 

 and have, therefore, failed in none : he, probably, cannot say 

 as much : so much for his suspicions ! He wished, it seems, 

 to shift from his own shoulders to mine the charge of "bung- 

 ling ; " but his attempt has proved rather a failure. 



Then, next he considers it exceedingly arrogant to accuse 

 him of prejudice. I, however, think rather differently, par- 

 ticularly as his prejudice is not opposed, as he would have us 

 to believe, against my inexperience, but against the experience 

 of all who know anything at all about the matter ; and he tries 

 to evade the imputation, by telling us an old story about a 

 Frenchman, which has about as much to do with the subject 

 in question as Mr. Charles Waterton's illustrations generally 

 have; just about as much as his story, the other day (VIII. 

 516.), about the divings of old Nicholas Pesce, had to do with 

 the "subaquatic promenade" of the Cinclus aquaticus; speak- 

 ing of which, from his proceeding to say (IX. 159.) that I 

 have not refuted any part of his theory advanced on that sub- 

 ject, I should think that he has not read p. 638. of Vol. VIIL, 

 where I have taken the only three arguments he has advanced, 

 and overturned them one by one. From seeing my name 

 signed at the bottom of the preceding page, he probably sup- 



